Tuesday, April 30, 2013

The tangible, grassroots ideas described below offer practically painless ways to start really getting on a carbon diet. More recently than via the general analysis in the post from May 2012, the suggestions below were also submitted to CARB. Unfortunately, their Implementation Plan promises to fund bridge technologies such as electric cars and bullet trains rather than long-term technologies like permaculture and passive solar.

Tip #1

Cal-EPA could invest in scholarships
for disadvantaged youth to attend a standard 2-week intensive Permaculture
Design Course workshops would further the state’s commitment to environmental
justice.

Tip #2

We could ban on all urban landscaping
machinery using engines or motors. This offers everyone an opportunity to practice
adapting to the planet (rather than adapting the planet to our temporary
fossil-fuel lifestyles) and grappling with advisable changes in technology,
without any hazard to survival or real comfort.

Specifically, phasing in such a ban in one year would bring
about sensible, widespread, nuts-and-bolts attention to the practice of
actually adapting and changing. If property owners and others who employ
landscaping services would simply continue, for a year, their existing monthly
payment for service, that would give all landscapers time to prepare for using
strictly manual tools. And those who maintain their own property with such
machinery should also prepare for change.

At the beginning of this transition year, landscapers and
their customers would need to have a conversation about how best to utilize the
same amount of work time as before, except with traditional tools. During this
year, landscapers and do-it-yourselfers should be offered workshops or even
apprenticeships on how to truly garden, in ways that are best for the plants
themselves. Urban farming is another excellent workshop topic for our
climate-change era. Organizing and offering these workshops is an opportunity
for sustainable investment, appropriate for cap-and-trade auction proceeds.

In general, current mow-and-blow landscapers seem to think
their job description is just to run a bunch of machines around, rather than to
nurture and attend to plants; thus there is great potential for learning
sustainable skills. Moreover, this process would increase comfort by reducing
noise pollution and replacing fossil-fuel engines and motors with healthy
exercise. More information about noise pollution (the orphan form of air
pollution) can be found at: http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/dirt-blasters/content?oid=1864716

The key advantages of this proposal are that it would not
necessarily cause any job loss nor increased financial costs for property owners.
While front yards and neighborhoods might not look exactly the same as before
such a ban, any such changes would not have any necessary or material negative
impact on anyone’s actual comfort or enjoyment of life. Thus, such a manageable
challenge is a very promising opportunity for people to begin to adapt now,
while it’s easy, and in an area of life where there is no real threat and
mistakes won’t be dangerous.

Tip #3

Another grassroots idea arises from the observation that many
policy analysts and scientists believe a carbon tax would be more effective and
less corruptible than cap & trade. However, until a carbon tax is approved,
there may be another option that’s somewhat in between the two.

Specifically, that option is a labeling system such that
every product sold in any retail context could be labeled by having a sticker
affixed to it before sale, a sticker that would specify the amount of fossil
fuels or the amount of equivalent carbon emissions that was entailed in its
whole supply chain. The stickers would be allowed to show an insignia such as
that of the seal of the State of California, and would be required to name the
product in question. CARB’s role would be limited to verifying and approving the
emissions estimates submitted by any party wishing to pursue the printing of
such stickers.

As above, any increase in anyone’s expenses would be modest
relative to the possible benefit. Since manufacturers and other businesses may
resist the costs of making sure such labels accompany all products which have a
fossil-fuel footprint, private citizens and advocacy organizations could would
be given the right to petition for and receive the right to print such labels. Cost-conscious
advocacy organizations would prioritize their calculations and printing for
products with higher emissions. And consumer-friendly manufacturers would leave
space on packages for the labels.

Upon timely CARB review and approval, the petitioner would
then have the right to print up as many labels as desired, and private citizens
would be granted the right to enter any retail establishment during any normal
hour of operation and affix the labels appropriately and accurately.

This process would leverage grassroots energy to
substantially increase the amount of information available to consumers on
climate change impacts due to our ordinary habitual daily activities, while
minimizing economic costs. Its effect would be similar to that of a carbon tax,
in that it would influence consumer decisions, but without actually reducing
anyone’s retail freedom nor increasing businesses’ expenses.

Tip #4

Investing the cap&trade auction proceeds in ways like these, that help ordinary individuals wring out excess and unnecessary
energy use by adapting and changing to a thrifty and nonmaterialistic lifestyle,
offers substantial leverage for convincing the Chinese (for example) that
happiness and economic harmony are better served by stepping off the
more-is-better, growth-is-good merry-go-round, and evolving a balanced economy
that most efficiently transforms energy and resources into ‘clean air and
water, healthy food, snug shelter, and plenty of sleep and exercise.’